Introduction
This article drew significant attention for its dramatic language and controversial claims, particularly regarding Speaker Mike Johnson’s praise of Trump’s military deployment actions in Los Angeles and derogatory comments aimed at California Governor Gavin Newsom. Additionally, suggestions that Republicans are using the unrest to accelerate legislative goals with minimal debate have prompted concerns about political opportunism. We fact-checked the most critical parts of the article to evaluate their accuracy and context.
Historical Context
California has long been a political battleground in discussions over immigration, law enforcement, and federal versus state power. Notably, California’s progressive stance frequently places it at odds with Republican-led federal actions, especially under former President Trump’s administration, which took a hardline stance on immigration. Deploying the National Guard or military within U.S. borders has historically required a governor’s consent, with few exceptions rooted in the Insurrection Act. This backdrop frames the current dispute between federal authority and state governance.
Claim #1: Trump Deployed 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines to Los Angeles Amid Protests
This claim was directly stated in the article: “…including deploying 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines to Los Angeles…” The Posse Comitatus Act restricts the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement, but the Insurrection Act allows deployment under specific conditions. As of June 10, 2025, no official Department of Defense (DoD) or White House statements confirm the deployment of Marines in Los Angeles.
While National Guard units can be deployed at the request of a governor or under federal order, the presence of Marines—active duty military—is a much more serious legal step. At present, only deployments of the California National Guard by Governor Gavin Newsom have been confirmed. There is no verified evidence confirming the deployment of 700 Marines by President Trump to Los Angeles.
Verdict: Unverified and potentially misleading. No official confirmation of Marine deployment exists in government records.
Source: U.S. Department of Defense Newsroom
Claim #2: The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ Could Add $3 Trillion to the Deficit
The article says the House-passed bill “could also add $3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.” This is a verified claim. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) evaluated the package—combining extensions of the 2017 Trump tax cuts with spending increases in military and border security, while cutting funding to SNAP, Medicaid, and other social programs.
The CBO’s analysis, published June 4, 2025, projects that if enacted, the legislation could increase the federal deficit by nearly $3 trillion over the next 10 years.
Verdict: True.
Source: Congressional Budget Office
Claim #3: Speaker Mike Johnson Compared LA Protests Favorably to Jan. 6
ABC News reports Johnson’s remarks: “The violence in Los Angeles is not comparable to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol,” and he added that mass pardons of Jan. 6 rioters “were not hypocritical.” The comparison—and Johnson’s defense that the situations are fundamentally different—has been perceived as downplaying the Capitol insurrection.
While this quote is factual and accurately cited, it lacks critical context. Over 1,300 people have been charged in connection to the Jan. 6 riot, including felony conspiracy charges. No similar legal designations or actions have been reported regarding the LA protests at the time of writing. Johnson’s dismissive comparison overlooks the gravity of the Capitol breach, which attempted to obstruct a democratic election certification.
Verdict: Misleading due to lack of context.
Sources: Justice Department – Capitol Breach Cases, LA Times Reporting
Claim #4: The Bill Would Cut Funding to Medicaid, SNAP, and Assistance Programs
The article mentions: “The legislation… makes some cuts to Medicaid, SNAP and other assistance programs.” This claim aligns with independent analysis. The Tax Policy Center and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities both confirm that under the version of the bill passed by the House, significant reductions would take place in Medicaid expansion reimbursements and SNAP eligibility rules.
Republican leadership justifies these cuts as means of reducing fraud and misallocation. However, critics emphasize that millions of low-income Americans may be affected if these provisions become law.
Verdict: True.
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Conclusion
This article overall reflects factual reporting, though it lacks important context in areas such as the comparison between current protests and the Jan. 6 insurrection. Some claims, like the deployment of Marines to Los Angeles, remain unverified and lean toward political theater rather than confirmed fact. The use of sensationalist language—such as “tarred and feathered”—adds to emotional framing rather than rational discourse. However, key legislative and budgetary data points are accurate according to reliable sources.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Want to dig behind the headlines? Download the DBUNK app today and separate fact from fiction in seconds. Join a growing community fighting misinformation and restoring trust in journalism. Follow us on social media or submit your own article for free fact-checking!
Link to Original Article
Read the original article here.
